Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.23(4) > 1089574

TOOLS
Kim: A Systematic Review of Birth Experience Assessment Instrument
Original Aricle

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2017;23(4):221-232.

Published online: 20 January 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2017.23.4.221

A Systematic Review of Birth Experience Assessment Instrument

Hyun Kyoung Kim

Department of Nursing, KC University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kim, Hyun Kyoung Department of nursing, KC University, 47 Kkachisan-ro, 24-gil, Gangseo-gu, Seoul 07661, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2600-2556, Fax: +82-2-2600-2524, E-mail: leomommy@hanmail.net

Received 12 July 201712 September 2017       Accepted 6 November 2017

Copyright © 2017 Korean Society of Women Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and to describe characteristics of the birth experience assessment instrument.

Methods

Literature related to the development of the birth experience assessment instrument was examined using a systematic review method. A literature search was conducted using the keywords as ‘[normal birth]; [satisfac∗ OR care quality]; [instrument OR scale] AND (development)' through PubMed, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and RISS. The search used quality appraisal through QUADAS (Quality Assessment of studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included Systemic reviews) yielding 17 records.

Results

The birth experience assessment instrument was categorized for instrumental characteristics: birth satisfaction (n=8), perception of labor experience (n=5), and birth care quality assessment in normal and operative birth experiences (n=4). Important key elements for content characteristics were as follows: nursing practice (n=10), pain control (n=5), environment (n=5), participation (n=4), and support (n=4).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the birth experience instrument is appropriate for measuring quality of birth care in various clinical conditions. This review of the birth experience instrument reports that an appropriate psychometric tool for enhancing quality of birth care is important.

Keywords: Birth, Care, Experience, Psychometrics, Satisfaction

References

1. Statistics Korea. 2017 population statistics [Internet]. Seoul: Korean Statistical Information Service;2017. [cited 2017 March 2]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsL-ist_01List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parentId=A.
2. Janssen PA, Dennis CL, Reime B. Development and psychometric testing of the care in obstetrics: Measure for testing satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Research in Nursing and Health. 2006; 29(1):51–60.
crossref
3. Sandin-Bojö AK, Larsson BW, Hall-Lord ML. Women's perception of intrapartal care in relation to WHO recommendations. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2008; 17(22):2993–3003.
crossref
4. Martin CH, Fleming V. The birth satisfaction scale. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 2011; 24(2):124–135.
5. Ford E, Ayers S, Wright DB. Measurement of maternal perceptions of support and control in birth (SCBI). Journal of Women's Health. 2009; 18(2):245–252.
6. Mohammad K, Shaban I, Homer C, Creedy D. Women's satisfaction with hospital-based intrapartum care: A Jordanian study. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. 2014; 6(3):32–39.
7. Smith LF. Development of a multidimensional labour satisfaction questionnaire: Dimensions, validity, and internal reliability. Quality in Health Care. 2001; 10(1):17–22.
crossref
8. Harvey S, Rach D, Stainton MC, Jarrell J, Brant R. Evaluation of satisfaction with midwifery care. Midwifery. 2002; 18(4):260–267.
crossref
9. Hodnett ED. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: A systemic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2002; 186(5):160–172.
10. Denker A, Taft C, Bergqvist L, Lilja H, Berg M. Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): Development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2010; 10:81.
crossref
11. Uludag E, Mete S. Development and testing of women's perception for the scale of supportive care given during labor. Pain Management Nursing. 2015; 16(5):751–758.
12. Kim SY, Park JE, Seo HJ, Lee YJ, Jang BH, Son HJ, et al. NECA's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews and metaanalysis for intervention. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency;2011. p. 271. p.
13. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research of Methodology. 2003; 3(25):1–13.
crossref
14. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2011; 155(8):529–536.
crossref
15. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York, NY: Wiley, John and Sons;2003. p. 336. p.
16. Redshaw M, Martin CR. Validation of a perceptions of care adjective checklist. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2009; 15(2):281–288.
crossref
17. Sandin Bojö AK, Hall-Lord ML, Axelsson O, Udén G, Wilde Larsson B. Midwifery care: Development of an instrument to measure quality based on the World Health Organization's classification of care in normal birth. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2004; 13(1):75–83.
18. Cavalho EMP, Gottems LBD, Pires MRGM. Adherence to best care practices in normal birth: Construction and validation of an instrument. Journal of School of Nursing. 2015; 49(6):889–897.
19. Fleming SE, Donovan-Batson C, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Birth Satisfaction Scale/Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS/BSS-R): A large scale United States planned home birth and birth center survey. Midwifery. 2016; 41:9–15.
20. Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Development and psychometric properties of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R). Midwifery. 2014; 30(6):610–619.
crossref
21. World Health Organization. Maternal and Newborn Health/Safe Motherhood Unit. Care in normal birth: A practical guide. Geneva: WHO;1996. p. 53. p.
22. Simbar M, Ghafari F, Zahrani ST, Majd HA. Assessment of quality of midwifery care in labour and delivery wards of selected Kordestan Medical Science University hospital. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 2009; 22(3):266–277.
23. Gungor I, Beji NK. Development and psychometric testing of the scales for measuring maternal satisfaction in normal and cesarean birth. Midwifery. 2012; 28(3):348–357.
24. Lavender T, Wallymahmed AH, Walkinshaw SA. Managing labor using partograms with different action lines: A prospective study of women's view. Birth. 1999; 26(2):89–96.
25. Park KH, Lee SH, Jin BK, Won JS. The effects of labor support behavior (LBS) one-to-one application and partner's delivery participation on the delivery satisfaction and delivery results among mothers who delivered premature birth and low weight infant. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2011; 17(2):239–250.

Figure 1.
Flow of study analysis through the different phases of the literature review.
kjwhn-23-221f1.tif
Table 1.
Quality Appraisal of the Studies (N=17)
No QUADAS Lavender (1999) Smith (2001) Harvey (2002) Sandin-Bojo (2004) Janssen (2006) Sandin-Bojo (2008) Ford (2009) Redshaw (2009) Simbar (2009) Denker (2010) Larsson (2010) Martin (2011) Gungor (2012) Martin (2014) Cavalho (2015) Uludag (2015) Fleming (2016)
1 Patient representativeness No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
2 Selection criteria No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No
3 Reference standard No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes
4 Time period Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 Verification of reference standard No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes
6 Same reference standard No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes
7 Independence of index test Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 Description of reference standard No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes
9 Description of index test Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10 Index test result interpretation Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
11 Reference standard result interpretation No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes
12 Clinical availability Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
13 Intermediate test result No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
14 Explanation of withdrawal No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
Total score 5 12 6 7 7 7 7 3 7 12 6 3 11 6 5 6 11

QUADAS=quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included systemic reviews.

Table 2.
Methodological Characteristics of the Studies (N=17)
No Author (Year) Nation Name of instrument Target population u Instrument user in article Sample Size Setting Mean Age Gestational week Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Study period
1 Lavender (1999) UK BS Postpartum women Doctor 615 Maternity hospital 24.9 40 C/S & N/D Unclear 2 days postpartum
2 Smith (2001) UK WOMBLSQ Postpartum women Midwife 2,302 Hospital, community center, & home 29.1 Unclear C/S & N/D Unclear 10 days postpartum
3 Harvey (2002) Canada SSQ Postpartum women aged 17∼36 Doctor, Midwife 194 Midwifery clinic 30.5 37∼41 Low risk N/D High risk pregnancy 6 weeks postpartum
4 Sandin-Bojo (2004) Sweden IC-WHO Postpartum women Midwife 11 Midwife & Obstetric doctor Unclear Unclear N/D Unclear Unclear
5 Janssen (2006) Canada COMFORTS Postpartum women Nurse 607 Women hospital 31.0 ＞20 N/D with vertex High risk pregnancy 2 days postpartum
6 Sandin-Bojo (2008) Sweden MCQ-WHO Postpartum women Nurse 384 Maternity hospital 28.4 Unclear C/S & N/D Not understand Swedish 2 months postpartum
7 Ford (2009) UK SCIB Postpartum women Nurse 412 Online web site 31.2 Unclear C/S & N/D Unclear Within 7 days postpartum
8 Redshaw (2009) UK PCACL-R Postpartum women Nurse 2,960 National survey data Unclear Unclear N/D Women aged＜16 3 months postpartum
9 Simbar (2009) Iran QMC Postpartum women Nurse 96 2 hospitals 24.9 37∼41.5 Low risk N/D Medical & surgical history At discharge
10 Denke (2010) Sweden CEQ Postpartum women Nurse 1,177 2 hospitals 28.1 37∼41.6 N/D with vertex Complicated 1 month postpartum
11 Larsson (2010) Sweden QPP-1 Postpartum women Nurse 739 21 maternity unit 30.4 Unclear C/S & N/D Not understand Swedish 2 weeks & 2 months postpartum
12 Martin (2011) UK BSS Postpartum women Nurse, Midwife 0 Database (NICE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL) Unclear Unclear C/S & N/D Unclear Unclear
13 Gungor (2012) Turkey SMMS Postpartum women Nurse 500 Maternity unit 28 ＞37 C/S & N/D Refuse 1 day postpartum
14 Martin (2014) UK BSS-R Postpartum women Nurse, Midwife 228 Maternity service center Unclear 40.1 C/S & N/D Heart disease, hypertension, cancer, infection 10 days postpartum
15 Cavalho Brazil (2015) BCPLB Postpartum women Nurse, Midwife 17 Professionels Unclear Unclear C/S & N/D Unclear Unclear
16 Uludag Turkey (2015) SWPSCGDL Postpartum women Nurse, Midwife 360 Women hospital 26.1 Unclear N/D Forcep & vacuum delivery Postpartum
17 Fleming USA (2016) BSS-R Postpartum women Nurse, Midwife 2,229 Home & hospital Unclear Unclear C/S & N/D Unclear Unclear

UK=United Kingdom; USA=United States of America; C/S=cesarean section; N/D=normal delivery; BS=birth satisfaction; WOMBLSQ=women's views of birth labor satisfaction questionnaire; SSQ=six simple questions; COMFORTS=care in obstetrics: a measure for testing satisfaction; IC-WHO=intrapartal care-world health organization; MCQ-WHO=midwifery care quality-world health organization; SCIB=support and control in birth; PCACL-R=perception of care adjective checklist in labor-revised; QMC=quality of midwifery care; CEQ=childbirth experience questionnaire; QPP-1=quality from the patient's perspective; BSS=birth satisfaction scale; SMMS=Scale for measuring maternal satisfaction; BSS-R=birth satisfaction scale-revised; BCPLB=best care practice during labor and birth; SWPSCGDL=scale of women's perception for supportive care given during labor.

Table 3.
Instrumental Characteristics of the Studies (N=17
No Author (yr) Aim Items Scales Range Subcategories Validity Reliability Cut off Reference test
1 Lavender (1999) To assess birth satisfaction 6 1∼4 6∼24 No subcategory (Practice, Control, Length of labor, Pain, Experience, Participation) Construct validity, Known group validity Internal consistency reliability (.82) None None
2 Smith (2001) To assess labor satisfaction 32 1∼4 32∼128 Professional support, Expectation, Home assessment, Holding baby, Support from husband, Pain in labor, Pain after delivery, Continuity, Environment, Control, General satisfaction Construct validity, Convergent validity Internal consistency reliability (.89) None Postnatal depression
3 Harvey (2002) To evaluate satisfaction with midwifery care 6 1∼7 6∼42 No subcategory Convergent validity, Known group validity Internal consistency reliability (.86) None Labor and delivery satisfaction
4 Sandin-Bojo (2004) To measure midwifery care according to WHO standard 78 1∼3 78∼234 Background, Useful practice, Harmful practice, Insufficient evidence practice, Inappropriate practice Content validity Inter rater reliability None None
5 Janssen (2006) To evaluate satisfaction with birth care 40 1∼5 40∼200 Confidence in newborn care, Postpartum nursing care, Provision of choice, Physical environment, Respect for privacy, Labor and delivery nursing care Construct validity, Known group validity Internal consistency reliability (.95) None None
6 Sandin-Bojo (2008) To evaluate birth perception 38 1∼5 38∼190 On admission, First stage, Second stage, After baby was born Known group validity None None None
7 Ford (2009) To measure birth control and support 33 1∼4 33∼132 Internal control, External control, Support Construct validity Internal consistency reliability (.95) None None
8 Redshaw (2009) To assess perception of birth care 16 1∼4 16∼64 Positive adjective, Negative adjective Construct validity, Convergent validity, Divergent validity, Discriminant validity, Predictive validity Internal consistency reliability (.70) None Staff perception
9 Simbar (2009) To assess birth care quality 39 1∼5 39∼195 Satisfaction with environmental condition, Satisfaction with care provision, Satisfaction with provided education Content validity Internal consistency reliability (.70) ＞60% Care procedure checklist
10 Denker (2010) To assess birth experience 22 1∼4 22∼88 Own capacity, Personal support, Perceived safety, Participation Construct validity, Discriminant validity, Known group validity Internal consistency reliability (＞.70) None None
11 Larsson (2010) To assess opinion of birth care 32 1∼4 32∼128 Medical technical competence, Physical technical condition, Identity oriented approach, Sociocultural atmosphere Construct validity, Known group validity Internal consistency reliability (.73∼.93) None None
12 Martin (2011) To assess birth satisfaction 30 1∼5 30∼150 Quality of care provision, Women's personal attribute, Stress experienced during labor Literature review None None None
13 Gungor (2012) To assess birth satisfaction 42 1∼5 42∼120 Perception of health professional, Preparation of C/S, Comforting, Information and involvement in decision making, Meeting baby, Postpartum care, Hospital room, Hospital facility, Respect for privacy, Meeting expectation Construct validity, Convergent validity, Content validity Internal consistency reliability (.91) ＞3.5 Satisfaction with nursing
14 Martin (2014) To assess birth satisfaction 10 1∼5 5∼50 Quality of care provision, Women's personal attribute, Stress experienced during labor Construct validity, Divergent validity, Known group validity Internal consistency reliability (.70) None None
15 Cavalho (2015) To assess birth care 50 1∼5 4∼250 Organization, Scientific evidence, Work process Construct validity None None None
16 Uludag (2015) To assess birth perception and support 33 1∼4 33∼132 Comfortable behavior, Education, Disturbing behavior Construct validity, Content validity Internal consistency reliability (.94) None None
17 Fleming (2016) To assess birth satisfaction 40 0∼4 0∼160 Quality of care provision, Women's satisfaction, Stress experienced during labor Known group validity None None None
TOOLS
Similar articles